Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

falsification is a bit more rigorous than that. You must first propose HOW it can be made true or false. try that, you cannot without also making the proposal false.
Wheres fil Albuquerque when we need him??

They are just as harmonious if they are different before the flood ended Because if Noah was 40,000,000 years old it doesn't change how Jesus interacts with modern post flood man. But it does tie other ancient documentation (that the first six chapters of Genesis in the bible were derived from) harmoniously with the bible plus, harmoniously tying in the fossil record, true anthropology and true archaeology. So, why not do it that way instead. A young earth is full of holes in all three of those fields. A simple change in the way we measured years before the flood is a simple and logical adjustment that is easy to accept.

I think the flood was a universe wide event that lasted for 40,000,000 years. The fossil record and ancient oral traditions (parts of which are included in Genesis) agree with that number.

It's not hard it is easy. What is hard is ignoring evidence so that a young earth timeline works.

So, you want me to figure out a way to provide falsification for something that was created by figuring out a way to show that it wasn't. That is like proving something you created with intelligence wasn't created with intelligence. OK you have no intelligence and your mamma wears army boots. Wheres my Samuel Adams.

How about Fresco. He's a philosopher.

Youre not too far off. , unfortunately ID has no means of being falsified. That alone mans it aint a scientific proposition (its a crude but effective means ). You spnt all your resources showing u that ID isnt religious yet all your attempts at validation are purely religious.

Even your statements that evidence for evolution "looks like " evidence for ID. You hqve no way of using that assertion in any research that may be proposed by Discovery Institute or AIG. Thts just a statement based on pure laziness and, in actuality DI has "given up" in its quest for Universal Intelligence cause they dont really hqve any idea what they need to find. Their terms like "Specified complexity" and "Irreducible complexity" or a "fine tuned Universe" have all been debunked (mostly by biologists and cosmologists although Dr Austen was debunked by some U Calgary Grad Students)

Falsification should not be a prerequisite for truth or, you end up with gobeldy gook like my last post. Somethings are true and not falsifiable, wouldn't you agree, you illogical old coot?
I am grabbing a second Samuel Adams. what are you drinking?

were interested in facts and theory in science, period. you should start start naming them a Nobel awaits you.

I would say an omnipotent intelligence is responsible for establishing the information in the natural systems we experience as the universe. You would say random generation of information is the source for all the natural information we experience.

Both are unfalsifiable.

One can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by patterns and belief a historical figure existed and his witnesses told the truth.

The other can’t.

I can predict and test the hows and why's of volution and it (and the supportive sciences ,which are all falsifiable in the case of their applications oof nat selection evolution. WRT ID, you hve no bases for which to even ask questions let alone make tests and predictions. The famous attempt at falsification via creative bumper stickers was and still is a horrible failure,that being irreducible complexity(A takeoff on the "sudden appearance" mantra of Phil Johnson.

So far, your arguments are made of 2 points
A. "Life is too complex to have arisen by Darwinian mean" and

B. "Th same Evidence that supports nat selection supports ID".(youve created a word phrase which has no factual basis in being other than you saying so and deferring to a god(even though you say that ID is merely a computer game).

You do seem to want to have it a whol bunch of ways, th total of which are profoundly unscientific no matter what you assert.

Panspermia, a topic that, if youve read what Ive said, cannot b ruled out for the creation of life on the planet. As of now we have no facts to deny or support. We have a way to test this and itll be evident when we go planet hopping to collct specimens on other worlds. That is about the closest to ID that science will get, but here I ASSERT that panspermia is NOT ID, its merely a means for an interstellar delivery van of the start up of organisms from space. It will take a hell of a lot of compelling evidence that,even with panspermia being stipulated, that there was "direction to life that is applied by the incoming nucleii". In other words, panspermia, if it is ver proven (for example, there is evidence from several sites thousands of miles apart that life may have arisen at least 3 separate times from organics seen in the sediments of Australia, Greenland , and Antartica(research is now focusing on how far apart these three episodes took place in time.
Science will always beat the camels till theyre good and dead and then review its findings. IS merely sits back and says "me too" . I dont believe that lazy research and thinking will ever be payed attention to,(to those really interested in what science is about).

I can tell you that, should panspermia be evidenced the next step will be to discover where and when did life originate intergalactic. Probably we will larn just as Andromda and the Milky way go into a subsumation dance and sveral suns start converting over to Helium and Iron fuel.


You seem to be more afraid of an option that doesnt require a god because maybe, everything you learned about him has been a lie eh? Evidence from the Bible seems to be somewhat fulfilling that comment that Lewis Black offered,
"The BIBLE eh? < Well, My people (the Jews ) were responsible for that one because WE UNDERSTAND BULLSHIT"

Noah lived 350 years after the flood. So this means 350x25,000=8,750,000 years of history just for Noah alone never mind his direct descendants. And the animals in the ark for 25,000 years....
Archaeology doesn’t line up with that.

I embrace the fact that the fossil record is an interpretation issue. That two ppl can be looking at the same fossil and conclude different things.
Just as jehovah witness interpret scripture differently although they have the same words.
It happens all the time, as I see two evolutionist scientists ‘debating’ that a mangled, compressed, decomposed fossil is transitional, while the other stands firm it is not.
Just as all dating techniques are laughable because they rely on wild assumptions in order to achieve ‘old age/dates’

I see our Einstein is checking in with some more comic book science

Qnd one of them would hve to be wrong. Provide qn interpretation that I my conclude something else and Ill show you here youre wrong.



You realize that youre just talking out of your ass about a subject that you have neither knowledge nor experience. Itd be like me giving critiques about how to drive a submarine.

You have your right to speak like an idiot and I hve my right to inform the othr readers that you are in need of a brain enema

I wonder when @Helloandgoodbye is going to say goodbye? He seems out of touch with reality. If two people have a different interpretation on the same fossil, it's obvious one has to be wrong. The what, when, where and how are the subjects under consideration. There can't be two right answers that differ.

Have you considered the possibility that both answers could be wrong?
I don't suppose you have. Dogma does not consider such a possibility.

The fossil record and the natural sciences show that biological evolution guided by natural selection can easily provide the information for micro evolution (variation within species or body types) by two mechanisms:

1. The information existed in the code (and that information has an unknown origin) and was a latent trait that was waiting for an environmental change that (through natural selection) will now become a dominant trait. This is a form of AI. This form of AI is, evidence of planning being built into the system, which means intelligence is a logical possibility for the unknown origin of the information in the code. (which is a logical conclusion using naive realism to interpret naturalism so it can make sense)

2. The simple random mutations to the genetic code can easily provide the information for microevolution because no planning is required.

The gaps in the fossil record are real and in the case of speciation, new organ systems and new capabilities a paradigm shift is required as the entire purpose of the organism has changed. These paradigm shifts in information technology have been replicated by humans millions of times for example:

1. steam engine to internal combustion engine to an electrical power grid.
2. horse power to mechanical power.
3. mechanical computer computation to solid state computer computation.

These patterns in paradigm shift can be compared to paradigm shifts in biological evolution:

1. single celled organisms to multicelled organisms with multiple types of organ specific cells.
2. ground driven locomotion to flight.
3. asexual to sexual reproduction.

When steam engines evolved to internal combustion to electrical motors with a power grid a paradigm shift in mechanical power was introduced that resulted in a completely different motor structure fuel type and fuel delivery systems.

These paradigm shifts appear as major jumps with evolutionary gaps in the archaeological record as the result of major introduction of new intelligently derived information.

The pattern of requiring intelligently derived information for paradigm shifts when the purpose of mechanical systems drastically changes is consistent in archaeology. The reason for intelligence requirement is, "the planning for future merging of codependent mechanical systems cannot be achieved without it". (That is falsifiable proof that shows intelligence is needed for paradigm shifts in information technology in human derived mechanical systems.)

We can only create an AI system that will automatically sort randomly introduced information changes for simple mechanical evolution but, we cannot produce an AI system that will introduce a paradigm shift in something like, a word processor than can automatically write a novel. (Another falsifiable proof) For that reason, we can reasonably assume that conclusion is possibly in true for all computing systems (information management systems) at all times whether, they are living biological systems, man made mechanical systems or, even non living natural information management systems like quantum mechanics.

The vast similarities in how information evolves between, paradigm shifts of the living systems in biological evolution and the mechanical systems in archaeology, are too similar to ignore. This pattern is very useful in interpreting the fossil record when determining the origin of the new information required for paradigm shifts in biological evolution. As matter of fact it is required when one understands why naturalism is incapable on its own in explaining paradigm shifts.

Naturalism is incapable of explaining paradigm shifts because, the very nature of intelligence and free will, renders naturalism impotent when used as the sole philosophical interpretation. When we interpret information in archaeological systems we always use naive realism (what the system can do or how the system reveals its ontology) and subjective idealism(how the mind or minds that designed the system developed its ontology).

So we need to quit making up rules when interpreting scientific information that eliminates from the discussion philosophical points of view (naive realism and subjective idealism) that have been very successful in similar interpretations of information technology when naturalism has proven by its "nature" and, "track record of failure", to be wholly inadequate to suffice as the sole philosophical interpretation of the information and its origins as we discuss them.

I am sure you are capable of using all three philosophical interpretations of information in your problem solving situations in your everyday life and have been successful because of it. If you want real answers in science you must figure out how to apply them in your scientific interpretations also.

The experiments to examine the information will be similar to those used in archaeology. You are already somewhat of an expert in those fields and I am sure you can imagine a valid experiment that transfers from "archaeology and anthropology" to "paleontology and biological evolution".

It should be easier for you than me anyway. Don't you think?

Tell me how in the hell you KNOW what the "code" is for organisms in the fossil record???

Youre painting yourself into a corner that is very familiar with Creationists. You claim something that you (OR ANYONE) can verify.
Tell me your evidence, not your wishes

I have read them and they prove the system is capable of evolution especially microevolution.

They do not prove that natural evolution without intelligent input can cause a paradigm shift like flight or sexuality. Nor do they explain how such a complex universe wide system of layers upon layers of embedded and synergistic information systems came to be without intelligent planning for future interactions among complex systems that initially do not depend on each other. Plus, they can't explain the greatest paradigm shift of them all.

How something came from nothing.

Where am I wrong?

It is similar to the codes we observe in living animals today or, are you suggesting they don't have a DNA code?

Could you clarify this statement?

If it works for micro it works for macro. There is no division between the two. It's all the same process. The fossil record shows it that way and genetic analysis confirms.

You have NO evidence about DNA in the fossil record. Or were you not aware of that fact??? You make up **** with so much ease that you ought to sell used Cars on Craig's list.

what does??? you so frequently get carried away with trying to sound profound that you miss yer point.

S far as something from nothing how bout a simpl equation like
E=mc^2 , is it a reversable equation?? and if not, why not??

Macro evolution is a paradigm shift which introduces completely different ways of arranging the information which results in completely different purposes for the organism and the systems it is consisted of. That amount of new information that changes cannot be done from random introduction of new information for a paradigm shift like flight without extinction occurring from the bad mutations that must be occurring at the same time. Plus, there is the natural lack of competitiveness that occurs to an animal as the animal goes through the morphological changes needed for flight but is still unable to fly thus also leading to extinction. Those two points were not factored into any mathematical analysis of this process being derived from random introduction of new information.